The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-08
HAMILTON CASE.
Chief Justice Cooper Sustained.
Justices Campbell and Arnold De-
liver Elaborate Opinions.
A Number of Fine Legal Questions
In the Case Settled.
Judge Peyton's Examination En-
tirely Constitutional.
1t is Not True That the Subsequent In
dictment for Murder Entities the
Accused to a New Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
Special Dispatch to the Appeal

Special Dispatch to the Appeal.
JACKSON, Miss, Nov. The case OF
Jones S. Hamilton and l.. VI. Eubank was,
of course, the most important Of all the de-
cisions rendered by the supreme court
here today, and is as follows:
The appeal of ex partc Jones J. ITamil-
ton and l.. NJ. Eubank from the decision Of
Chief Justice Cooper, ON trial on the
writ Of habeas corpus, was affirmed. A
number Of nice legal questions in this case
were settled by the decision. The synop-
scs Of the opinions read are here given.
Justice Campbell said: "The trial before
Chancellor Peyton was the trial Of a writ
of habeascorpus. Had the judgment been
in favor Of presenter It would have been
conclusive in their favor, according To the
statutes, and il must as against them have
its full effect ~ q judgment rendered on
the trial OF writ Of habcas corpus II is
true that Chancellor Pcyton, by consent Of
all concerned, might have set IN a substi-
tutc for the justice of the peace, and
then his judgment would have had no
greater effect than one by the Justice Of the
peace would have had; hut the record of
the proceeding must govern, and Il shows
that the writ ol habegs corpus WIS pcti-
toned for and issued and rcturnedas such,
and the fact that the chancellor announced
that he was examining the ease ~ II hc was
a justice Of the peace does not change the
aspect Of the case ~ made hy the record
The second section of IAN act 10 regulate
a.. =
approved February ~, 1884, made no
change in the law ~ II existed before.
Every judge in this State, authorized to
issue aud try writs Of habcas corpus. is by
the constitution and laws cOnscryator Uf
the peace, and his plain duty WIS, before
the act Of 1883, Ia hold the party
before him ON habcas corpus II
the evidence show@l the party guilty
OF some crime, however defective or irreg-
ular the proceedings for his commitment
may have been, aud the time never WIS
In this State when any Judge with an in
telligcnt comprehension 81 his position and
duty would discharge : party In such n
case. Section 1854, OF the code, which pre-.
cludcs a second writ =" the same party for
the same oilcnsc until the iipSt IL reversed,
the opinion states Is constitutional. 1T
nntcdates the constitution aud has been
the law of this State since 1872. The con
siiluiions of 1852 aud 1869 were adapted
with reference 10 Il, and no provision OF
the constitution Is inconsistent with u.
The whole purpose oi the statute II Ia de-
clare the effect oi q judgment ON the trial
OF a writ ui habras corpus ~ q bar "a an
other writ In the amc cause 10 bring the
same matter In qucsiiot, aud ~ q proicc-
ten TO the person discharged, against
further confinement for the same cause,
except by a court Of competent iuri-dic-
ton.
"rhc judgment against him on the trial
Of the iir.t writ h continuously aud per.
petually throughout the same cause con-
elusive against him NJ bar to another
writ to contest the siitc matter involved
IN the iirst trial. Tic bar In favor OF the
prisoner discharged on the iint trial is
operative in his favor 10 protect him from
being aitcrward confined for the same
cause, except by a court Of competent iur.
isdiciion."
lie referred TO the English statutes aud
and the statutes Oi some American states
Ia sustain.
These views wcrc heretofore announced
hythis court in cX paric Putiisbn, ~ his,is.
appi; cx paric llridcWcll, " Mississippi,
aud cN paric Nichols, G2 Mississippi, aud
are adhered Ia. "NcWly' discovered cyi-
dcncc, which, added a. the evidence on
the dnt trial, would vary the case,
cannot avoid the bar ul the former iudg-
mrnt. II some decisive fact In itself con
elusive Of the Innocence " the prisoner
charged 10 have bccn killed, being
produced, or thr like, would
avoid the bar Oi the iir,t judgment,
IL X sufficient 10 say that is not the case
before M. The eyidpurr Offered here was
oi the sort which IL WIS claimed would,
when considered IN connection with that
taken on the iint trial, show the prisoners
10 be- entitled Ia bail in this cHn the cyi-
dcnce given on the iui trial was pre-.
served, but Ia many cassf anl probably
In most, the cyidoncc heard by the Judge
Is not written down ~ preserved, aud even
II bill oi exceptions u signed that b for
the appellate count only. How then
In the second writ Ol habens corpus
10 be- tried " bcf0rC the same judgri u
hc io rely on memory for the cyidcncc2 II
before another judgn, what them Are
the witnesses iint hpHrl io bc again pro-
duccd, or shall their testimony ~ given ON
the iirst trial bo preserved by those Who
heard ~ Shall the discovery ol u new
witness neccSi,aic o new investigation 20
ascertain II the old and The new together
show the ease 10 be hillablci To Nv hold
would nullify the statute.
THE nature of thn proceeding pncclndcs
the adoption Of the rule applicable 10 new
trials for newly discovered evidence, aud
indicates the conclusion Ut which W. have
arrived.
"1ho former judgment did embrace the
matter involved In tfc ncw writ, viz The
right 10 bail ON the s'r" ol incis existing
when the int writ wa tried. The pro-
pricty of the change ol venue cannot bc
deicrmidcd ia this proceeding. II the law
authorizing Il was declared unconsiitu.
ti0nal, that would nnt aIlcct the question
oi granting ball. but vu would not bc uh-
dcnaood ~ suggosliny doubt ol thcc coh'
stituiiOnaliiy Of the statute on ihai subject.
Them Il nothing boo ilc complaint that
Hamilton was not giuw the chancellor.
ut Is not true, as argued by counsel
that the subsequent indictment oi TIC par
ties for murder mnlH % new ease 80 as 10
cniiilc them 10 ano.'.r writ oi habcgs cor
pus, and ~ M 30 can their appeal ifoin
the judgment ag1In them on ihc ilrsi
/ writ 10 be dsmiasei I OBI court N held
IN ox pario BrdcU,. The blr against
them continues aiipf ul..inl'ni thfgnRh-
out the cause, ~ n. HU7'rhi we nghl to
bail on tho STATE Ui iar" 'Al''lns "hch